‘Verdict makes me feel like a 2nd-class citizen’

[Ababeel]

It is very clear thruout Indian history after independence how secular India is.
And now this sheet decision based on Belief and Faith completely took the mask from the face of so called secular India. All the fields in India are controlled by the fascist forces.

 

[KS]

I'm all for France-style secularism in India, are you?

No ....never will they accept Secularism under its truest definition - separtion of religion and state as in France.

For them Secularism means special concession under the fancy name of minorities.

 

[RamGorur]

If it was illegal by Islamic law then how Indian Judicial System made it legal and gave 1/3rd land for its re-construction?

The truth is totally opposite. Babri masjid's 2/3 land is illegaly and unjustifiably snatched from muslims to serve the appetite of hard-line hindutwa forces.

Fighter

Its called Adverse Possession. Simply put, one can claim ownership simply by possessing a property for a considerable length of time.

One more thing. It was only Justice Verma who opined that the mosque wasn't as per Islamic tenets. The other two judges Justice Khan and Justice Agarwal made no such observation. Which means Justice Verma's opinion was defeated by 2 votes to 1.


I can understand that this verdict has enough vagueness that can be twisted in anyway to suite one's fancy.

 

[temujin]

If you believe in secularism ..then who the hell are you to suggest that Indian Muslims should be glad that India is secular..you should be equally glad India is secular not a Islamic or Christan or a Sikh state.

Most Indian laws uniform in their application except one in which Muslims are allowed to take more than one wife..but thats should be none of your concern..if you wan't such a law for your community to..then go file an appeal and get the Hindu marriage act abolish...then all the laws will be uniform.

Van Holle, I agree with many of the Pakistani posters here (and the OP) that India is not truly secular (but not for the reasons that they cite)

Secularism as practiced in India in not " true secularism", with the total separation of church and state but rather a form of proto secularism adopted by the state a means of reconciling competing demands from different religious groups. This includes a separate civil code for muslims in what is a bid to sell the idea of a democratic and secular India to a skeptical muslim population, which regards concepts such as democracy and secularism as western and shirk due to the primacy of "man made" laws and rejection of the preeminence of the Islamic belief system over others in a democratic and secular state.

India will only become a truly secular state once religious and castist considerations cease to influence the electoral and legislative process and we are are at least a few decades away from it IMO ( although the measured reaction to the Babri verdict does give me some hope).

 

[parasite]

1) As a Hindu I think that land should be given to Hindus as it is so sacred (comparable to vetican) and as accepted by the court.....
2) It is the most practical decision (no denying)
3) Had verdict was in favour of muslims then only India can be considered secular......???
4) Spare the discussion now for Supreme court will have the final say......

 

[RamGorur]

That's a given. It would have gone to the supreme court no matter what the decision.
Why I asked a question earlier was because of the fact that once the judges had ruled the Waqf Board's case was barred by limitation & if adverse possession was found in favour of the Hindu litigants, then in 9 times out of 10 the court would have handed over complete control to the party with possession. The fact that it did not do that in this case has also been a point of criticism from some lawyers and would be the grounds on which the Hindu litigants could approach the Supreme Court. The Waqf Board would only have a case if their claim was admitted by the court. When their suit stands dismissed(even if on technical reasons), the case is as good as lost. The 1/3rd division awarded to Muslims should be seen in this context too. ( I am making no comments on the soundness or otherwise of the judgment passed, just pointing out the complexities involved)

Just a minor nitpick. Waqf Board claimed exclusive ownership. This was rejected on technical ground (called 'period of limitation'). But since they were in possession of the land for a considerable length of time, along with the Hindus, they became the joint owners by virtue of adverse possession.

The disputed land has actually been divided half way between Waqf and Hindu Mahasabha(sic). The Akhra was not the disputed land (if I'm not mistaken).

 

[Illusive]

10 pages of religious stuff in a defense forum, complete waste of time. The decision has been given, respect it.

 

[arihant]

Just a minor nitpick. Waqf Board claimed exclusive ownership. This was rejected on technical ground (called 'period of limitation'). But since they were in possession of the land for a considerable length of time, along with the Hindus, they became the joint owners by virtue of adverse possession.

The disputed land has actually been divided half way between Waqf and Hindu Mahasabha(sic). The Akhra was not the disputed land (if I'm not mistaken).

You are absolutely true. I gave my whole night reading the wordings of all the justice.

It is clearly mention that land is not given to Sunni Waqf Board (technically) but Muslims who also use to pray along with hindus in at least or before 1855.

Yes, land is actually divided into two parts only. Nirmohi Akhara was added to list because Sunni Waqf board claim ownership of outer yard also which was in possession of Nirmohi Akhara since Akbar with attest proof of at least 1741 when Foreign travel visited and wrote books.

Although, all justice agreed that this is scared land of Hindus, but two justice also justified that because muslim also use to pray it also belongs to them. That is why half is given to them.

 

[aristocrat]

oops!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[aristocrat]

Typical Muslim mentality, they are hard to get pleased. @Fighter488, Most of the Hindus don't like Indian version of secularism, but you should be thankful to the majority community that India is still secular to minorities.

^^u r a plain idiot.They dont have to be thankful about anything.THATS THEIR RIGHT.Post by true indian sums it all up.

 

[temujin]

Yes ! Those 800 years that taught you what a world outside 'High Cast Hindu wisdom' look alike! The 800 years that gave this country the most advanced system of governace, laws, society, infrastructure and a sense of equality. The 800 years that cleared the path to PROGRESSIVE INDIA AND ALL EQUAL INDIANS as a whole!
You are so funny, I never imagined!

As for the question go and figure out yourself. It is no rocket science.

Fighter

Hmm..Guess we should start thanking the Muslim rule of India for laying the foundations for an enlightened and prosperous state..Hang on, let's just examine the fate of some other nations which have had the privilege of being similarly conquered and ruled by Islamists. That would include most of the middle east, half of Africa, Afghanistan, the central asian stans and the land of the pure. Now check the United Nations Human Development Index to see how many of these nations (apart from the oil rich gulf states which were dirt poor before they struck oil) inhabit the bottom half of the table. "The most advanced system of governance" didn`t do them much good, did it?

In contrast, India accounted for 33% of world GDP (bigger than the Roman empire) in 1 AD and had a highly advanced economy, legal system and, despite many social evils such as the ever popular among certain circles 'Sati', a free thinking society which gave birth to religions like Jainism and Buddhism and boasted of centres of learning such as Nalanda and Taxila well before the looters arrived.

Economic history of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know its a hard pill to swallow but Islamist rule contributed very little to modern India (apart from fostering enduring schisms within society) bar a few grand buildings, as most of the 'legal and social' aspects of the era that you cite have been discarded by modern India in favour of more progressive western models of governance.

I challenge you to name one major contribution to Indian society that can be directly attributed to the Moghals or the Ghaznavids or whoever? Much of the mathematical and scientific advances of ancient Islamic cultures were largely based on contemporary Greek and Indian thinking, although the Arabs and Persians at the time were enlightened enough not to dismiss it as 'infidel science', choosing instead to build on and refine it.

Before you start, India was unified in its present form by the British and most parts had been governed as a single entity from time to time by many kings in the past, as far back as Ashoka. Even if British had left India as a bunch of princely states, I believe some form of federal structure would have emerged with time due to overlapping cultural and economic interests (much like the present day EU)

 

[KS]

Hmm..Guess we should start thanking the Muslim rule of India for laying the foundations for an enlightened and prosperous state..Hang on, let's just examine the fate of some other nations which have had the privilege of being similarly conquered and ruled by Islamists. That would include most of the middle east, half of Africa, Afghanistan, the central asian stans and the land of the pure. Now check the United Nations Human Development Index to see how many of these nations (apart from the oil rich gulf states which were dirt poor before they struck oil) inhabit the bottom half of the table. "The most advanced system of governance" didn`t do them much good, did it?

In contrast, India accounted for 33% of world GDP (bigger than the Roman empire) in 1 AD and had a highly advanced economy, legal system and, despite many social evils such as the ever popular among certain circles 'Sati', a free thinking society which gave birth to religions like Jainism and Buddhism and boasted of centres of learning such as Nalanda and Taxila well before the looters arrived.

Economic history of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know its a hard pill to swallow but Islamist rule contributed very little to modern India (apart from fostering enduring schisms within society) bar a few grand buildings, as most of the 'legal and social' aspects of the era that you cite have been discarded by modern India in favour of more progressive western models of governance.

I challenge you to name one major contribution to Indian society that can be directly attributed to the Moghals or the Ghaznavids or whoever? Much of the mathematical and scientific advances of ancient Islamic cultures were largely based on contemporary Greek and Indian thinking, although the Arabs and Persians at the time were enlightened enough not to dismiss it as 'infidel science', choosing instead to build on and refine it.

Before you start, India was unified in its present form by the British and most parts had been governed as a single entity from time to time by many kings in the past, as far back as Ashoka. Even if British had left India as a bunch of princely states, I believe some form of federal structure would have emerged with time due to overlapping cultural and economic interests (much like the present day EU)

You are barking up the wrong tree.

Lets thank rulers like Aurangazeb,Mahmud Ghazni,Bakthiyar Khilji who had liberated us - savage Indians and gave us culture,tradition,knowledge and everything we have today.

 

[manava]

i would like to ask fighter or any Muslims around the world what we as a Hindu should do to be more secular? (i am asking it seriously).. i would like to know on what things Muslims of India are not feeling equal....and i would also like to know is it same with other other community of India (Christians ,Jews,Zoroastrians etc etc if any are there in this forum).

 

[temujin]

You are barking up the wrong tree.

Lets thank rulers like Aurangazeb,Mahmud Ghazni,Bakthiyar Khilji who had liberated us - savage Indians and gave us culture,tradition,knowledge and everything we have today.

Karthik, I can see what many Indians on this forum are trying to do but I (sadly) have to concur with your last comment. If there were any doubts, the reaction to the Barbi verdict have surely dispelled them.

 

[arihant]

I think even if VHP declares that they would not challenge any other site which was previously temple after Janmsthan is handed over to them, it would still be secularity. But to prove secularity, Both Parties should declare something jointly which was preserve the peach and harmony for long time.